If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Lost your password? Questions? Email admin @ theologyweb.com

TWeb had an OS update go bad and had to be restored to a previous state. We've lost two days worth of posts so you all get a do-over.

Deh. National governments will go the way of the dinosaur. The future will be conglomerate companies having their own serfs, and be known as "the House of Apple" or "the House of Walmart" etc.

Been watching too much Sci-fi? It seems to be a recurrent theme there. Pretty much a way to demonize corporations by leftist hollywood. The narrative is that corporations are evil and greedy and will eventually take over the world and are the bad guys who need to be defeated by the protagonists. Makes a nice movie, but I doubt it would become reality.

Singapore is an interesting "economic model"---apparently 80% of its housing is "Public" (owned by the government) and people rent it (or "own" it for 99 years). It has 2 Sovereign wealth funds, Temasak Holdings and GIC Private limited---which are among the worlds wealthiest sovereign funds.....One could say Singapore is a giant corporation...that "owns" Singapore---both its land and its people....?....
(Norway has the wealthiest sovereign wealth fund---from its oil)

The OBOR project and its financial intrument the AIIB are also interesting trends.....

In a May 13 article, “Behind China’s $1 Trillion Plan to Shake Up the Economic Order,” the New York Times predicted: “The initiative … looms on a scope and scale with little precedent in modern history, promising more than $1 trillion in infrastructure and spanning more than 60 countries. Mr. Xi is aiming to use China’s wealth and industrial know-how to create a new kind of globalization that will dispense with the rules of the aging Western-dominated institutions. The goal is to refashion the global economic order, drawing countries and companies more tightly into China’s orbit. It is impossible for any foreign leader, multinational executive or international banker to ignore China’s push to remake global trade.
......

According to a Times editorial of Dec. 5, 2015, “Countries are finding they must increasingly operate in China’s orbit. The United States worries that China will use the bank to set the global economic agenda on its own terms.”

In addition to the AIIB, the China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China already finance big-ticket projects in Asia and Africa. By Chinese estimates, their combined overseas assets stand at $500 billion — more than the combined capital of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.

.....U.S. military planners brag of their ability to strangle China and cut its vital shipping lanes, such as the Straits of Malacca. This narrow transit point between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea handles 80 percent of China’s crude oil and other vital imports.

China, now the world’s largest trading nation, has responded with the nonmilitary OBOR plan that will open many trade routes through surrounding countries. Trade routes, unlike U.S. military bases, offer immediate benefit to the development of these countries. China is expected to invest up to $1.3 trillion in OBOR infrastructure projects.

For example, the experience of the East Asian economies demonstrates the positive effect of globalization on economic growth and shows that at least under some circumstances globalization decreases poverty. The spectacular growth in East Asia, which increased GDP per capita by eightfold and raised millions of people out of poverty, was based largely on globalization—export-led growth and closing the technology gap with industrialized countries (Stiglitz, 2003). Generally, economies that globalize have higher growth rates than non-globalizers (Bhagwati and Srinivasan, 2002).

One could argue both ways---a phenomenon that seems "positive" can be viewed as negative depending on perspective. How is one to define "poverty"? Is it only a matter of income numbers alone? When countries "develop" at a steep rate, it puts a lot of pressure on societies and systems---as more people find work in cities/factories, they earn more and can send their children to schools creating pressure on the school systems and education programs which translates to students studying longer and harder to get into "good" schools in order to get "good" jobs---often leading to problems such as school bullying, suicides, and/or violence...
With more people coming to the cities to work---it leads to overcrowding, pressures on the public infrastructures---which then leads to higher taxes as governments scramble to keep up...which then eats into the incomes....With more people looking for homes/apartments in overcrowded cities---prices and loans become expensive saddling people with debts....which means they cannot afford to loose their jobs. Those looking for cheaper places move outside---leading to long commutes which then ends up cutting into family time---leaving children and elderly family members to fend for themselves....Yet, as the "economic numbers" rise---foreign investment also rises flooding the market---which then creates a bubble---which can "burst". And when it does---it leaves a lot of people dry.....which then increases bankruptcies and suicides....

"Economics" is only a numbers game. It does not take into account any of the human/social costs involved---its only concern is the GDP "numbers". That is why "Poverty" is reduced to a number---below a certain number it is poverty and above it is not....

Once a society becomes such that people have no choice but to go into debt to pay for education and shelter...and food becomes expensive (because now all the farmers are working in the factories or the cities)---then the country ends up importing "low-skilled" workers to keep the competitive edge...this means immigrants...which puts even more strain on all infrastructures requiring further increase in taxes....and the cycle continues.....

---Today's "Capitalism" is really a no-win cycle for the average person---a rigged system where the only winners are the politicians and the rich 1% who live off exploiting everyone else....and the rest of us fools live in the illusion that we are better off because the numbers say so!!!

Globalization is inevitable---what we need now is a win-win system/s. One that focuses not on numbers but on people and societies.

There are a lot of good points there. I see globalization as a force that is causing the transition from a rural agricultural society to an urban industrial one to occur in other countries throughout the world. I do wonder if that transition is one in which a certain amount of social unrest and tension is inevitable. The problems you mentioned certainly happened in Western Europe, the U.S., and Japan in the 19th century as they were industrializing. But maybe there is a way to limit those effects.

"Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do."-Jeremy Bentham

"We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question."-Orson Scott Card

There are a lot of good points there. I see globalization as a force that is causing the transition from a rural agricultural society to an urban industrial one to occur in other countries throughout the world. I do wonder if that transition is one in which a certain amount of social unrest and tension is inevitable. The problems you mentioned certainly happened in Western Europe, the U.S., and Japan in the 19th century as they were industrializing. But maybe there is a way to limit those effects.

globalization and industrialization phenomenon are not unique to "modernity"---though we like to think so....urbanization and mass production (relatively speaking) occurred in previous (pre-modern) civilizations that traded internationally. Like today---those in agriculture set out for the cities to find better paying jobs---and exploitation (slavery) took care of jobs no one else wanted to do---today immigrants do those jobs...or they are outsourced to countries where it is easy to exploit people....

With all its problems...I favor globalization (with diversity---not uniformity)---yet, I think there are improvements that can be made to the "systems" so that the weak and vulnerable of our communities are better taken care of....and those who are the "average joe" are not exploited or overworked and those who have the fortune to own much wealth, have the opportunity and desire to spend it for worthy cause.
(at the moment---the paradigms that have the potential for this, are the pre-modern religions.....they have within them, the ethical-moral tools to set up such global systems.....?....)

The previous/pre-modern trajectories of global trade and industrialization created "artisans"---or specialization. When generic mass production is no longer a profit-maker, people (regions) began to specialize. It seems this phase has not yet occurred in our Modern period..??....products should no longer be generic but specialized to particular needs and tastes---so different regions around the world can make specialized, beautiful products....products that incorporate their unique worldview/culture/identity.....

One simple "law" of economics is that wealth must flow---anytime an individual, group, or system (Modern financial system) horde wealth, the economy stagnates---people get divided into haves and have not....when wealth flows throughout the community---shared prosperity---then everyone has the means "to buy"---which creates the market---which builds the economy. In the successful global economic systems---everyone must "have"---a system that produces "have not" is one that will self-destruct...because it is not sustainable. Without the flow of wealth into the community, the market will shrink because the "have not" no longer have the means "to buy"....

Today, in some places, the means "to buy" is created through tools of debt production (credit cards, mortgages...etc) but such a system is an illusion---it is not a good foundation. (win-lose system) Systems of wealth creation and wealth flow must come about without burdensome debt production in order to have stable and self-sustaining foundations.
(...and both Christianity and Islam have this as an ethical principle)

That is why we must forget economic systems that are a numbers game---and instead build systems that see the wealth production and flow in people and communities--real economics.